Subject:
|
Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:43:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1624 times
|
| |
|
|
> > > > > I guess I thought that once a number is used, it's used up.
> > > >
> > > > AFAIK, TLG doesn't recycle numbers.
Todd Lehman wrote:
> > > Joshua relayed once to me some deductive evidence that TLG has recycled
> > > part numbers in at least a couple odd circumstances.
> > >
> > > For example, the 1x2 plate hinges numbered 4275 & 4276 originally had
> > > only 1 hinge finger on the male part and 2 hinge fingers on the female
> > > part.
> > > When TLG redesigned the pieces to have 2 and 3 hinge fingers,
> > > respectively, they re-used the same part numbers for different molds!
> > > :-(
In lugnet.cad.dev, chris_w_dee@hotmail.com (Chris Dee) writes:
> > Yes, but I think only for _equivalent_ parts.
>
> That makes it less frustrating?
>
> > I just discovered that there are
> > two versions of the Street Sweeper Brush Holder (2578) - both have this number
> > moulded on.
>
> The list must go on and on... :-[p How different are the two sweet
> streeper brushes?
They are quite different. I didn't know that both had the same
number, though. CHRIS: Are you certain that the housing from set
XXXX has 2578 molded into it?
The original, from 1991, has a tilting-bearing-hinge connection:
http://www.kl.net/scans/6000/6645/6645-02.jpg while the later version,
from 6649, has a female ball-and-socket joint (in other words, a
socket): http://www.kl.net/scans/6000/6649/6649-03.jpg
I don't find this equivalent in the same way that I find the various
Mini-Figure Heads, 2x2 Cones, 4x4 Conic Sections, or plate tubes
equivalent, however; since the mating element is completely different.
Moreover, there _have_ been reuses for different (not evolutionary)
elements, but they're very rare, and not to be worried about, really.
We'll most likely just use the letter specifier on those, should they
ever get drawn.
The largest question is whether the sub-1000 LDRAW codes will ever get
reused. That would require some sort of new baseline date, where all
~moved to references would become invalid, and parts authors would
have to use LDAO to update files or become lost in the shuffle. The
longer we go without doing this, the less likely this is to occur, of
course. My guess is that it's too late already.
-- joshua
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
| (...) That makes it less frustrating? (...) The list must go on and on... :-[p How different are the two sweet streeper brushes? --Todd (25 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
26 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
